Building and Construction (Small Stand-alone Dwellings) Amendment Bill

Members, we now come to Part 2. Part 2 is the debate on clauses 25 to 56, “Amendments to other legislation”, and Schedule 2. The question is that Part 2 stand part.

I’ll start by asking the Minister a question around clause 30, the section 209 amendment. Understanding that new subsection (1A) is, essentially, a replica of subsection (1), there is a particular area that is not included as part of subsection (1A). I just want to seek the Minister’s clarification around it. In section 209(2), it says, “A territorial authority may retain any portion of a development contribution or land referred to in subsection (1)”—OK, you know what, it is actually answered in subsection (2). I take that back.

The question I then have for the Minister is—I am curious about both subsections (1) and (1A)—why, then, if a development doesn’t proceed because the developer chose not to proceed, the territorial authority needs to refund the application for that. In this particular case, what do the personal representatives—I’m assuming, in this case, lawyers; presumably, it could be, or not. My second question is actually around Schedule 2, which is also tied to this area. Now, Schedule 2, in terms of Part 10, clause 59(1), it says, “Territorial authorities may require development contributions for small stand-alone dwellings even where not authorised … expiring 3 years after that date.” Does that mean that, after three years, the territorial authorities can no longer require development contributions? How am I supposed to interpret clause 59(1)? If that’s the case, why has three years been chosen as a date after which they can no longer require development contributions? Those two are my first, initial questions on Part 2.

Thank you, Madam Chair. In the member’s second question, I didn’t quite catch where the reference to the three-year period is. So after I’ve answered his first question, I wonder if he would seek a call just to clarify that, please.

In terms of the point around return of a development contribution or some land that had been set aside where that has taken place in consideration for providing or enabling the development to take place: if the development doesn’t take place, then the development contribution which is used to support funding infrastructure isn’t needed anymore for that purpose. So that would be why that would be returned.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I’ll just call on Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan to clarify the question that the Minister just referred to.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’ll be really brief. So this is Schedule 2, inserting new Part 10 into the Local Government Act, clause 59(1).

Schedule 2 has provisions that allow that “Territorial authorities may require development contributions for small stand-alone dwellings”, but clause 59(1) says this clause only applies—and it expires within three years of the commencement date. My question is: does that mean that after the three years, and after this clause has expired, territorial authorities can no longer require development contributions for small stand-alone dwellings? Is that how I’m meant to be reading that particular clause?

My other question is about Schedule 2; useful questions from Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan about how territorial authorities might make these decisions in the interim period where they might not be able to update their own processes internally. But my question is really around whether that word “policy” is broad enough to capture what the Minister means, because territorial authorities will do some of this in policy, but some of it at the plan level. There will be instruments that councils use which you wouldn’t normally describe as policy, so is that what he means? Can he clarify for us what needs to be updated here by local councils that he’s envisioning is helping here and solving, especially in clause 59(2)?

Thank you, Madam Chair, and I’m grateful to the member Lawrence Xu-Nan, who was kind enough to repeat and clarify his question. The schedule that he refers to provides a period of three years in which development contributions can be charged in the way set out in this legislation, because it’s envisaged that, within that period of time, councils will have the ability to update their policies, practices, and procedures, and also in anticipation of resource management reform that will change the way development contributions are charged. It might be that some replacement of development contributions is introduced, but we think that to provide at least a three-year window in which those changes can be made will mean that, in the meantime, councils have a clear, fair—well, at least, a clear—way of continuing to charge development contributions so that they’re not left out of pocket in the meantime. Of course, the point of that is to provide the supporting infrastructure that would be needed for these so-called granny flats.

In terms of question that Arena Williams asks regarding the failure of a trusted professional to provide what they are required to do under the Act, I would say—and as a lawyer who’s self-sure, hopefully—I recognise that there are a number of different categories of obligation. One is statutory, in terms of what’s required under the Act; another would be contractual, as between the building professional, which is some other tradie or a builder in the sense of a Licensed Building Practitioner; and also occupational. The disciplinary powers of various practitioner boards is something that we’re looking at separately from, or in addition to, what’s needed to make sure this regime is robust. That’s because, overall, we want a system that is as enabling as possible but that doesn’t enable building professionals who can’t or shouldn’t be trusted to continue to provide work that is substandard or delivered in an unethical fashion. All those different categories of obligation are enforceable in different ways against a professional who doesn’t meet their obligations in this law.

The question is that Part 2—oh sorry, was there a call?

Tom Rutherford: Madam Chair?

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Lawrence Xu-Nan was on his feet first. Have you just got a quick clarification?

I just have a quick question for the Minister for Building and Construction regarding clause 52, and this is to do with electricity safety regulations. I’m curious to just kind of get clarification from the Minister on when it comes to “responsible person”. When we were previously looking at the plumbers section of the new section 27A, inserted by clause 39, it talks about a supervisor as well. I just want to check, in this case, that the “responsible person” also covers, for example, a supervisor of someone who’s on a provisional electrician licence as well.

Yes. To the best of my knowledge—if I’ve understood the question correctly; I think it’s right that I should clarify in case I’ve misunderstood—professional obligations relate to those doing the work or those who are supervising the work being carried out by those who are not suitably qualified, licensed professionally, whether it’s plumbers, gasfitters, drainlayers, or others.

Part 2 agreed to.

Now, the Schedule 1 vote. The question is that Vanushi Walters’ tabled amendment to Schedule 1, new Schedule 1A be agreed to.